This disclosure is directed to systems and methods for implementing integration, and translation of data between varying communication, navigation, surveillance and sensor systems in a vehicle.
Recent years have seen tremendous technology advances in electronic communication, navigation, surveillance and sensor systems. Many of these systems are specifically designed to be vehicle mounted and integrated. As such, an ability to provide a vehicle with advanced communication, navigation, surveillance and/or sensor integration capabilities exists.
Vehicle manufacturers attempt to keep pace with the rate of technologic advance in the areas of communication, navigation, surveillance and sensor systems. Often, however, by the time the vehicle is produced, with such these systems installed, advances have been made in one or more of the above categories that may render one or more of the “factory-installed” systems less effective than an operator of the vehicle, who is aware of the latest capabilities, may desire. Providing then new vehicles with the latest suite of electronics is a challenge.
This challenge only increases in the area of what can broadly be considered “after-market” modification. Operators of older vehicles, not desiring to replace serviceable older vehicles, may desire to have those vehicles upgraded with some measure of advanced communication, navigation, surveillance and/or sensor systems based on the inclusion of one or more components of the latest available technology.
In new vehicles, at least the delivered systems are generally integrated in a manner by which the individual system components can exchange data and possibly share common data storage capabilities and certain of the functionalities. For older vehicles, the above-described modification scheme, on the other hand, tends to result in piecemeal replacement based on a number of factors, and a resultant non-integrated system. The factors may include the age of the vehicle and a capability of the vehicle and other legacy systems to support upgrade, based on numerous considerations. Another factor may be the individual resources that the operator has to dedicate to upgrade and modification and the operator's priorities for such upgrade or modification. Soon, what was once at least a limitedly integrated system has broken down through modification and upgrade of individual components into a collection of substantially stand-alone systems directed to specific capabilities and requiring virtually autonomous operation. This occurrence may be based, for example, from individual systems having optimized data handling characteristics and data protocols that are incompatible with other installed systems.
The above-described difficulties resulting from routine and on-going vehicle upgrade are nowhere more acute than in, for example, aerial vehicles, and particularly military, commercial and general aviation aircraft. It is generally impractical to replace older airframes, particularly because they still may have significant remaining service life, based on a desire to take advantage of newer integrated avionics systems, even when upgrades in other support systems external to the vehicle in the environment within which the vehicle is intended to be operated, may have rendered obsolete one or more of the legacy avionic systems installed in the vehicle.
The practical solution is to routinely upgrade particular airframes or groups of airframes with more advanced avionics systems for communication, navigation, surveillance, and/or sensor integration, as well as aircraft operation in the form of advanced mission computers and/or operational flight programs. Every upgrade decision will be based on a series of factors prioritized by the aircraft operator, or, in instances, mandated by governmental or industry directive or certification requirement. Factors that may affect the decision to upgrade include availability and physical compatibility of the newer components, as well as generally economically-based decisions balancing a desire for a specific capability against cost.
Because these individual component systems, and advances in such systems, are developed by differing entities and produced by differing manufacturers, many of whom desire that their individual products support integration of only others of their products, the individual component systems that a particular user may desire to include in upgrade of an individual vehicle, or group of vehicles, may be incompatible with each other. Generally, this incompatibility manifests itself in an inability of legacy systems to communicate, and exchange data, with the newer systems, based often on factors such as differing data exchange protocols.
A result of the combination of the above factors is that individual updated components may be installed in a vehicle, with an eye toward upgrading one or more of the communication, navigation, surveillance and/or sensor capabilities of the vehicle, but the individual newly-procured and installed component system may be incompatible with one or more of legacy systems that are not upgraded in a commensurate manner to be, for example, compatible with the newly-installed system. In reality then, the inclusion of the newly-installed component may actually decrease the effectiveness of the overall system within which the newly-installed component system is included.
This situation becomes more extensive when, over a period of time, many individual upgrades are undertaken such that the communication/navigation/surveillance/sensor system in a vehicle becomes a set of individual components limitedly linked together in a manner that may not take full advantage of the capabilities of any of the individually newly-installed, and perhaps significantly-upgraded, component capabilities.
A solution to the integration problem is to modify individual systems and/or their embedded software, or to require modification of other dependent systems and/or sub-systems to include single translational type devices at various stages in the intercommunications pathways, and/or data communications buses, that connect the individual components of the differing system and sub-systems. In specific instances, individual interface units may be provided in order to support translation and/or integration of certain of the capabilities of the newly-installed component with the legacy systems.
Owing to limitedly-modifiable hardware configurations, to the extent that translation and integration can be provided between individual system components and/or devices, it is unrealistic, particularly across, for example, a fleet of vehicles to create and maintain individually customized single purpose interaction devices in a cost-effective manner. A necessity to provide single-purpose interfaces necessarily increases cost and/or complexity of the overall system within which the newly-installed components are intended to be employed. Coincidentally, future upgrade potential is even more detrimentally affected.
As the tension increases between the rate of technology advance in individual component systems, and a need to prolong the usable service life of an individual vehicle, the answer is not to attempt to address each translational problem associated with an individual communication or data interface between non-compatible systems with a single purpose translator or integrator.